Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:12:35.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognate Objects in Russian: Is the Notion “Cognate” Relevant for Syntax?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Asya Pereltsvaig
Asya Pereltsvaig*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is concerned with cognate objects (COs) in Russian, of which there are shown to be two types. Only one type of CO exhibits argument properties, while the other type is shown to pattern with predicative nominals. Furthermore, it is argued that the two types of COs pattern with non-cognate nominals with the same function. It is therefore proposed to analyze argument COs on a par with their non-cognate counterparts as thematic direct objects, checking their accusative case in the specifier of Aspect Phrase. In contrast, the non-argument COs are analyzed as secondary predicates over the event argument projected by the main predicate of the clause. Finally, it is argued that a narrow, English-based definition of a CO (i.e., based on zero affixation) cannot be applied to other languages with richer derivational morphology. Yet, once the definition is widened to include all nominals based on the same root as the verb, it is concluded that being cognate is not relevant for the theory of syntax and must therefore be relegated to the morphological component of the language.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article examine deux types d’objets apparentés (OA) (Cognate Objects) en russe. Seulement un de ces types d’OA possède les caractéristiques d’un argument tandis que l’autre se comporte comme un nominal prédicatif. Il est proposé que les deux types d’OA se comportent comme les nominaux non-apparentés qui ont la même fonction. On peut donc analyser les OA qui ont des caractéristiques d’argument comme des objets directs thématiques qui vérifient leur cas accusatif dans le spécifieur du syntagme aspectuel, tout comme les nominaux non-apparentés qui ont la même fonction. Par contre, les OA qui ne possèdent pas les caractéristiques d’un argument doivent être analysés comme des prédicats secondaires qui portent sur l’argument d’événement projeté par le prédicat principal. Enfin, il est argué qu’une définition restrictive des OA se basant sur l’anglais (c’est-à-dire fondée sur l’affixation d’un morphème nul) ne s’applique pas aux langues dont la morphologie dérivationnelle est plus riche. Si l’on reformule la définition pour tenir compte des nominaux dont la racine est la même que celle du verbe, on remarque que le fait d’être apparenté n’est pas pertinent pour la théorie syntaxique et que ce concept relève plutôt de la composante morphologique.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 267 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailyn, John, and Rubin, Edward. 1991. The unification of instrumental Case Assignment in Russian. In Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 9, ed. Toribio, Almeida and Harbert, Wayne, 99–126. Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C., and Stewart, Osamuyimen Thompson. 1997. Unaccusativity and the Adjective-Verb Distinction: Edo Evidence. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 27:33–47.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, and Shlonsky, Ur. 1995. The order of verbal complements: Acomparative study. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13:489–526.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic inquiry 24:591–656.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard S. 1997. The typology of predicate case marking. In Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givón, ed. Bybee, Joan, Haiman, John, and Thompson, Sandra A., 39–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. Reprinted in Davidson, David, Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1983. Verbless predicates in Hebrew. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. To appear. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, George. 1996. Oblique passivization in Russian. Slavic and East European Journal 40:519–546.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12:155–184.Google Scholar
Goodall, Grant Todd. 1984. Parallel structures in syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1999. Adverb placement—convergence of structure and linking. Paper read at the Adverbs and Adjunction Conference, Tromsø.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16:547–593.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael Allan. 1988. Cognate objects and the Case Filter. Journal of Linguistics 24:89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive Case and aspect. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Wilheim, 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire. 1994. On spelling out E. Travaux de recherche sur le créole haïtien. Département de linguistique, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Macfarland, Talke. 1995. Cognate Objects and the argument/adjunct distinction in English. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1990. Cognate Objects as thematic objects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35:161–190.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Masumi. 1996. The syntax and semantics of the Cognate Object construction. English Linguistics 13:199–220.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1992. Adjunct predicates and the individual/stage distinction. Ms., Indiana University.Google Scholar
McNulty, Elaine. 1988. The syntax of adjunct predicates. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary L. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3:1–29.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 1998. Cognate Objects as reflections of Davidsonian event arguments. In Events and Grammar, ed. Rothstein, Susan, 309–332. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Fredericke. 1989. Nominal and clausal event predicates. In Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 300–314. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1999. Two classes of Cognate Objects. In The Proceedings of the WCCFL XVII, ed. Shahin, Kimary, Blake, Susan, and Kim, Eun-Sook, 537–551. Stanford: SCLI.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. To appear a. On accusative adverbials in Russian and Finnish. ZAS Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. To appear b. Cognate Objects in Modern and Biblical Hebrew. Volume of Papers on Semitic Syntax, ed. Ouhalla, Jamal and Shlonsky, Ur.Google Scholar
Pham, Hoa T. 1999. Indirect Cognate Objects: Vietnamese case. In Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 17, ed. Smallwood, Carolyn and Bejar, Susana, 227–246. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–24.Google Scholar
Rapoport, Tova R. 1991. Adjunct-predicate licensing and D-structure. Syntax and Semantics 25:159–187.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 1983. The syntactic forms of predication. Doctoral dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1977. Constraints on coordination. Language 53:86–103.Google Scholar
Stewart, Osamuyimen Thompson. 1998. The serial verb construction parameter. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol Lee. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Doctoral dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena. 1994. Event phrase and a theory of functional categories. In Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Koskinen, Paivi, 559–570. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Uesaka, Miwako. 1996. The ‘te-i(ru)’ construction in Japanese: interaction between aspect and syntax. Master’s thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1982. Why can you have a drink when you can’t have an eat? Language 58:753–799.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of representation in the lexicon and the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar